Dolphin Ratings - College Basketball

Explanation: Each team is listed with its record, overall score differential, and six ratings. Brief explanations of the ratings follow.

Schedule The number in this column is the effective opponent strength of a team. In other words, they would be expected to have the same record had they played all games against an opponent of this predictive rating at a neutral site. Because this calculation depends on the strength of the team in question, it is not possible to rank schedules using these values.
Standard Ranks teams in an order such that a team is "probably better" than all teams ranked lower than it. This calculation uses margin of victory only for computing a team's opponents strengths; the team's rating itself is computed using only wins, losses, and ties relative to its schedule
Median Likelihood Determines the likely ratings for each team, based on its wins, losses, and ties relative to its schedule. This generally produces the same or similar ratings as the standard ranking.
Predictive Both schedule strength and rating vs. schedule strength are determined considering both the wins and losses and the score differentials. This rating contains none of the biases in the standard rating, but does weight recent games slightly more than past games since those are a better indication of the team's current strength. This rating is the best of the first three for seeing how good teams are, and thus is the best for predicting future results.
Improved RPI Rating The improved RPI formula is similar to the standard RPI, except that the schedule strength is carried out to infinite depth instead of ending with opponents' opponents, thus allows for a better comparison of isolated groups of teams than is given by the standard RPI calculation. It is similar to the simple rating, except that all games are given equal weight.
RPI Rating. Included only because of common real-life usage. The RPI rating has many statistical problems. The football RPI rating is based on the BCS formula, and approximates the schedule, loss, and quality win components.
Pseudopoll. The pseudopoll contains an AI evaluation of each team's season, designed to mimic human decision-making processes. There are 121 voters, each with slightly different biases.
Predictive-Scoring. This value indicates how many points a team would be expected to score if it played an identical team.
Predictive-Offense. This combines the predictive and scoring ratings to measure how many points a team scores. The number is the predictive rating of an opponent against whom the team would be expected to score the league average number of points. This does not necessarily rate a team's offensive abilities, as a fast pace in basketball or big-play defense in football can make a team score more points.
Predictive-Defense. This combines the predictive and scoring ratings to measure how many points a team allows. The number is the predictive rating of an opponent against whom the team would be expected to allow the league average number of points. The same caveat in the predictive-offense rating applies here.

Because these ratings contain no prejudices regarding team or conference strengths, they tend to be quite inaccurate early in the seasons. College football appears to take at least 5 games per team before even remotely reasonable ratings are produced; acceptable ratings are produced with 8 games per team; excellent ratings unfortunately require 14 games per team.

Rankings by division: Overall NCAA-I NCAA-II NCAA-III NAIA-I NAIA-II NCCAA-I NCCAA-II USCAA-I USCAA-II CIS CCAA NBCAA Indep

Full Ranking

                                                    STANDARD   MED LIKELY  PREDICTIVE  IMPRVD RPI     RPI         POLL   
TEAM                     W  L  T   PF   PA  SCHED  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  P-SCR  P-OFF  P-DEF
Robt Morris-Springfield 13  8  0 1660 1512 -0.568    1  5.855    1 -0.327    2 -0.494    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1      0  3.626  0.020 -1.009
Rochester MI            20 10  0 2218 1842 -0.660    2  5.765    2 -0.410    1 -0.192    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1      0  3.350 -0.793  0.409
Marygrove               13 20  0 2394 2445 -0.739    3  4.797    3 -1.120    3 -0.914    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1      0  3.509 -0.890 -0.937
Rhema Bible             19 19  0 2734 2812 -1.295    4  4.665    4 -1.229    7 -1.397    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1      0  3.498 -1.419 -1.376
Apprentice               5 19  0 1750 1960 -0.592    5  4.366    5 -1.472    4 -1.063    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1      0  3.561 -0.824 -1.302
Johnson & Wales FL      10 18  0 1887 1988 -1.081    6  4.333    6 -1.510    6 -1.326    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1      0  3.385 -1.794 -0.858
Philander Smith          4 20  0 1781 2033 -0.444    7  4.281    7 -1.564    5 -1.156    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1      0  3.664 -0.473 -1.838
Florida College          9 12  0 1656 1764 -1.826    8  4.021    8 -1.834    8 -2.139    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1      0  3.690 -1.340 -2.938
Lyndon St               11 11  0 1652 1733 -2.578    9  3.385    9 -2.454    9 -2.654    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1      0  3.647 -2.047 -3.261
Briarcliffe              8 21  0 1878 2359 -2.805   10  2.608   10 -3.145   10 -3.437    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1      0  3.525 -3.346 -3.528


USCAA-I: strength=-1.394 (#1)
                                                    STANDARD   MED LIKELY  PREDICTIVE  IMPRVD RPI     RPI         POLL   
TEAM                     W  L  T   PF   PA  SCHED  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  RNK RATING  P-SCR  P-OFF  P-DEF
Robt Morris-Springfield 13  8  0 1660 1512 -0.568    1  5.855    1 -0.327    2 -0.494    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1      0  3.626  0.020 -1.009
Rochester MI            20 10  0 2218 1842 -0.660    2  5.765    2 -0.410    1 -0.192    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1      0  3.350 -0.793  0.409
Northwest Christian     16 12  0 2006 1894 -0.988       5.206      -0.787      -0.738      0.0000      0.0000           0  3.384 -1.209 -0.267
Columbia Union           4 22  0 1988 2360 -0.220       5.007      -0.963      -0.927      0.0000      0.0000           0  3.707 -0.052 -1.801
Southern Virginia       12 14  0 2228 2193 -0.957       4.885      -1.035      -0.952      0.0000      0.0000           0  3.777  0.241 -2.145
Marygrove               13 20  0 2394 2445 -0.739    3  4.797    3 -1.120    3 -0.914    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1      0  3.509 -0.890 -0.937
Rhema Bible             19 19  0 2734 2812 -1.295    4  4.665    4 -1.229    7 -1.397    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1      0  3.498 -1.419 -1.376
Apprentice               5 19  0 1750 1960 -0.592    5  4.366    5 -1.472    4 -1.063    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1      0  3.561 -0.824 -1.302
Presentation            10 15  0 1647 1730 -1.367       4.356      -1.484      -1.666      0.0000      0.0000           0  3.360 -2.227 -1.104
Johnson & Wales FL      10 18  0 1887 1988 -1.081    6  4.333    6 -1.510    6 -1.326    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1      0  3.385 -1.794 -0.858
Philander Smith          4 20  0 1781 2033 -0.444    7  4.281    7 -1.564    5 -1.156    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1      0  3.664 -0.473 -1.838
Florida College          9 12  0 1656 1764 -1.826    8  4.021    8 -1.834    8 -2.139    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1      0  3.690 -1.340 -2.938
Walla Walla              4 19  0 1695 2188 -1.394       3.834      -2.033      -2.394      0.0000      0.0000           0  3.758 -1.289 -3.499
Lyndon St               11 11  0 1652 1733 -2.578    9  3.385    9 -2.454    9 -2.654    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1      0  3.647 -2.047 -3.261
Briarcliffe              8 21  0 1878 2359 -2.805   10  2.608   10 -3.145   10 -3.437    1 0.0000    1 0.0000    1      0  3.525 -3.346 -3.528

Conference Strengths
CONFERENCE                  W   L   T   PCT  RNK RATING
USCAA-I                   158 240   0 0.397    1 -1.394

Home field advantage amounts to:
     0.300 points in main ratings
     0.032 points in improved RPI
Average of 2.15 points per score

Predict score:






Team Strength vs. Time Plot:





posted: Mon Dec 31 14:25:20 2007

Back to Dolphin rankings main page.